AP: North Korea Threatens US As World Anticipates Missile (MET and please learn)

[Mad Mike]

Edit: let's put this behind us.

[Mad Mike]

edit: see above

[Bang]

BLINK

North Korean Ship Turns Around After Being TrackED

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_nkorea_ship

WASHINGTON – U.S. officials said Tuesday that a North Korean ship has turned around and is headed back toward the north where it came from, after being tracked for more than a week by American Navy vessels on suspicion of carrying illegal weapons.

The move keeps the U.S. and the rest of the international community guessing: Where is the Kang Nam going? Does its cargo include materials banned by a new U.N. anti-proliferation resolution?

The ship left a North Korean port of Nampo on June 17 and is the first vessel monitored under U.N. sanctions that ban the regime from selling arms and nuclear-related material.

The Navy has been watching it — at times following it from a distance. It traveled south and southwest for more than a week; then, on Sunday, it turned around and headed back north, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

Nearly two weeks after the ship left North Korea, officials said Tuesday they still don't know where it is going. But it was some 250 miles south of Hong Kong on Tuesday, one official said.

Though acknowledging all along that the Kang Nam's destination was unclear, some officials said last week that it could be going to Myanmar and that it was unclear whether it could reach there without stopping in another port to refuel.

The rest of the story

~Bang

[Larry]

OK, lets just say he fires a test missile within 1000 miles of Hawaii in an obvious threatening manner. What do you do?

Your question is contradictory. The terms "1000 miles" and "obviously threatening" are mutually exclusive.

Frankly, the impression I'm getting from this event (although I'll observe that I haven't seen anything that says so. It just seems this way, to me) is that what the little :pooh: has is a missile that takes three weeks preparation on the launch pad before he can fire it, and he only has one launch pad. If the thing hits Hawaii, it's not a threat. (Yet.)

[Predicto]

So much for us being civil huh? Way to take the low road by badmouthing me when I was trying to engage you in a civil conversation.

What an ass....

You know, I honestly thought you and I could have a rational discussion about this. I was honestly trying to have a civil exchange of ideas. I guess I expected too much.

I apologize. I guess there is too much water under the bridge between us on these issues for me to read your postings without the past interfering with my reactions.

In my defense, you used to do exactly what I said. When I questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq, you accused me of supporting Saddam.

And you still do the same sort of thing. In this thread, you thought PeterMP was calling the USA the aggressor in this situation, which is an interpretatation that no other Tailgater would have made to what he actually posted. You tend to immediately jump to the worst interpretation of the other person's intentions, and presume that they are anti-American.

Nevertheless you are right. What I said was snotty, and I should not have said it. I have edited it and I will try to do better in the future.

[Larry]

But the reality is it's NOT the same thing. We are not the insane, outlaw regime that is threatening the region. We are not the bad guy.

You make it sound like poor little N. Korea isn't doing anything wrong. I don't know it that was your intention or not but that's what it sounds like.

And you're making it sound like if NK launches a missile in any direction whatsoever, then it's a declaration of war. But if we launch one, first, then clearly we're not the aggressor and have done nothing wrong.

[Mr. Grundle]

But the reality is it's NOT the same thing. We are not the insane, outlaw regime that is threatening the region. We are not the bad guy.

You make it sound like poor little N. Korea isn't doing anything wrong. I don't know it that was your intention or not but that's what it sounds like.

This is the type of thinking that causes wars. Usually because both sides are thinking it.

[Mad Mike]

I apologize. I guess there is too much water under the bridge between us on these issues for me to read your postings without the past interfering with my reactions.

In my defense, you used to do exactly what I said. When I questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq, you accused me of supporting Saddam.

And you still do the same sort of thing. In this thread, you thought PeterMP was calling the USA the aggressor in this situation, which is an interpretatation that no other Tailgater would have made to what he actually posted. You tend to immediately jump to the worst interpretation of the other person's intentions, and presume that they are anti-American.

Nevertheless you are right. What I said was snotty, and I should not have said it. I have edited it and I will try to do better in the future.

Accepted and understood. Look man. Intellectually I have a lot of respect for you even when I don't agree. If we can ever find a way to get along, I think we could have some interesting conversations.

But in defense of myself I doubt the conversation went from "I don't think we should have invaded" to me accusing you of supporting Saddam. I'm pretty sure you are leaving big chunks of that conversation out.

I'm also kind of baffled by people asking what N. Korea did wrong when the title of the thread is "North Korea Threatens US..." but where do you get that "you thought PeterMP was calling the USA the aggressor in this situation" when all I did is ask him to clarify his position... "I'm sorry, Do I understand you correctly? Do you believe we are the antagonists?" And his response was to equate our actions to N Korea. Which in all honestly sounds like he is saying "we are antagonizing them so why shouldn't they be able to antagonize us." Now if you disagree with my interpretation, maybe you should ask him to clarify. I asked once and he didn't. Maybe you will have better luck.

In a world with lots of grey areas, N. Korea is not one of them. THEY ARE THE BAD GUY. I think any rational person would have to agree with that statement.

Are you honestly going to argue that Peters statement "What did they do wrong?" is not a little bit out there? Are they not in defiance of the entire world in developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems and trying to sell that technology to other rogue nations. Does that not sound like he is defending them? Still my response was... "I'm sorry, Do I understand you correctly? Do you believe we are the antagonists?" That's a far cry from the reaction you accused me of.

But just to play along let's answer Peters question (What did they do wrong?) since people seem stumped by this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

North Korea had warned previously it would fire a long-range missile as a response to U.N. Security Council condemnation of an April rocket launch seen as a cover for its ballistic missile technology.

Seems like a rational response from me. How dare we accuse them of launching missiles to test their ballistic missile technology. Why shouldn't they launch a ballistic missile in response? [/sarcasm]

An underground nuclear test last month drew more Security Council action: a resolution seeking to clamp down on North Korea's trading of banned arms and weapons-related material by requiring U.N. member states to request inspections of ships carrying suspected cargo.

How dare the UN! Clearly N. Korea is in the right to respond with...

North Korea has said it would consider interception of its ships a declaration of war, and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to start another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," a dispatch from the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Meanwhile...

a flurry of diplomatic efforts were under way to try getting North Korea to return to disarmament talks.

So. Do we really need to ask what they did wrong? Is that really the best response to what I was saying and the question I asked?

[Mad Mike]

And you're making it sound like if NK launches a missile in any direction whatsoever, then it's a declaration of war. But if we launch one, first, then clearly we're not the aggressor and have done nothing wrong.

Where the hell do you get this? Show me where I said we should launch one first.

Holy crap this is getting ridiculous. I'm getting atacked for words other people are putting in my mouth. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

Your question is contradictory. The terms "1000 miles" and "obviously threatening" are mutually exclusive.

Frankly, the impression I'm getting from this event (although I'll observe that I haven't seen anything that says so. It just seems this way, to me) is that what the little :pooh: has is a missile that takes three weeks preparation on the launch pad before he can fire it, and he only has one launch pad. If the thing hits Hawaii, it's not a threat. (Yet.)

How are they exclusive if N. Korea verbally threatens us and then fires a missile within 1000 miles of Hawaii? Are you going to argue the two are not connected?

And seriously. If a nuclear capable country repeatedly threatens us, launches an ICBM and it hits american soil, it's not a threat? Are you sure you don't want to take that comment back? :doh:

[Predicto]

Accepted and understood. Look man. Intellectually I have a lot of respect for you even when I don't agree. If we can ever find a way to get along, I think we could have some interesting conversations.

But in defense of myself I doubt the conversation went from "I don't think we should have invaded" to me accusing you of supporting Saddam. I'm pretty sure you are leaving big chunks of that conversation out.

No doubt. But I never, ever, ever had anything good to say about Saddam Hussein, yet somehow as the conversation and threads went along I found myself having to make this clear to you over and over, because you kept questioning it.

In a world with lots of grey areas, N. Korea is not one of them. THEY ARE THE BAD GUY. I think any rational person would have to agree with that statement.

We ALL agree with that. Operate from that initial assumption, and then try to understand what other people are saying. We are not questioning the crappiness of N. Korea, we are investigating our own possible responses to that crappiness, and how to determine when some threat is too much threat to bear, and what the consequences of various actions might be, and so forth. Things that people of good will can disagree on without accusing the other person of siding with the enemy.

And props to you. You may get Mad too much, but you have a good brain. No fly by night Limbaugh-quoting from Mad Mike.

[Mad Mike]

And props to you. You may get Mad too much, but you have a good brain. No fly by night Limbaugh-quoting from Mad Mike.

I really appreciate that. Thank you and right back at ya. (The good part :-) )

I know that my temper is one of my worst faults. I have fought it all my life. but most of the time what people interpret as anger from me is more a matter of me being a smart ass. Another fault to be sure but I really don't mean anything by it. When I actually talk to people its usually not so bad because they see the me laugh and smile and know I'm just joking in my own smart ass way. But still, it is the reason I had to learn martial arts just to defend myself from the people I pissed off. :doh: I could even show you a comment about my smart mouth in a JR high yearbook.

None of the above excuses me from bad behavior. I work hard at tempering my comments but I still have a lot of work to do in that department.

The only thing I will say in my defense is that sometimes the attacks on me here take on a life of their own. In this thread alone I've had several people put words in my mouth and then write a paragraph condemning me for things I never said. I sometimes wonder if a name change would help. "Mad Mike" was intended to mean crazy not angry but it seems to color everything I say in the wrong light. :doh:

[MurrayH81]

Just don't change it to Gay Mike, okay?

[boofMcboof]

This thread just got a lot more boring.

[Mad Mike]

Just don't change it to Gay Mike, okay?

Not much chance of that.

[PeterMP]

North Korea had warned previously it would fire a long-range missile as a response to U.N. Security Council condemnation of an April rocket launch seen as a cover for its ballistic missile technology.

So how do you think we developed ICBMs. Do you think we did it w/o testing the technology.

An underground nuclear test last month drew more Security Council action: a resolution seeking to clamp down on North Korea's trading of banned arms and weapons-related material by requiring U.N. member states to request inspections of ships carrying suspected cargo.

I'd have to know more about what is banned and why they are banned.

North Korea has said it would consider interception of its ships a declaration of war, and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to start another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," a dispatch from the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Well, realistically, historically that is the case. Stopping another countries ships on the high seas is an act of war. See the war of 1812.

(But I do actually support that. I just do so with the understanding that we are doing something that has historically been seen as a cause to go to war, and it is possible and historically not unprecedented for the other side to escalate the "conflict". In this particular case, assuming we have good intel that they are trying to export nuclear and/or missle technology that the risk is worth it.)

"a flurry of diplomatic efforts were under way to try getting North Korea to return to disarmament talks. "

1. So N. Korea doesn't have the right to refuse to negotiate its disarmament?

2. This is stupid. This regime under both the father and son have given every indication that they intend to further advance their military technology/ability. Any negotiation w/ them turns into appeasement, which allows them to strengthen the regime while continuing w/ their over all objective (albe it w/ at a slower time scale in some cases). When they are willing to actually give something up at the beginning of the negotiations (yes a "pre-condition") it might be worthwhile. When the son of the current leader takes over, it might be worth approaching him, but until then, a waste of time and resources.

[Mad Mike]

So how do you think we developed ICBMs. Do you think we did it w/o testing the technology.

So you feel North Korea should be allowed to develop ICBMS?

I'd have to know more about what is banned and why they are banned.

It's banned because of international law.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm

Well, realistically, historically that is the case. Stopping another countries ships on the high seas is an act of war. See the war of 1812.

So is the act of breaking an embargo.

(But I do actually support that. I just do so with the understanding that we are doing something that has historically been seen as a cause to go to war, and it is possible and historically not unprecedented for the other side to escalate the "conflict". In this particular case, assuming we have good intel that they are trying to export nuclear and/or missle technology that the risk is worth it.)

1. So N. Korea doesn't have the right to refuse to negotiate its disarmament?

Sure it can refuse. But by those rules, we and the rest of the international community have the right to react to that and do what is best for us as well.

2. This is stupid. This regime under both the father and son have given every indication that they intend to further advance their military technology/ability. Any negotiation w/ them turns into appeasement, which allows them to strengthen the regime while continuing w/ their over all objective (albe it w/ at a slower time scale in some cases). When they are willing to actually give something up at the beginning of the negotiations (yes a "pre-condition") it might be worthwhile. When the son of the current leader takes over, it might be worth approaching him, but until then, a waste of time and resources.

So what do you do? Give up?

I'm reminded of one of my favorite lyrics...

"If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

[PeterMP]

So what do you do? Give up?

I'm reminded of one of my favorite lyrics...

"If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

1. In terms of ICBMs, them firing an ICBM into the middle of the Pacific is not worth starting a war over so if those are the choices, yes, let them develop ICBMs.

2. Well, if the Security Council decided it based on its own in the absence of a N. Korea agreement, then I don't particularly like it as a reason to go to war (I will contrast this to the Iraqi situations were the basis of many of the issues were dictated by agreements they agreed to ending the first war). Imgine the outrage if tomorrow the UN declared Capitial Punishment illegal or any restrictions on womans right to get an abortion.

3. Embargos are normally considered acts of war. They require you to stop other countries ships in international waters.

4. By what rules? If we didn't negotiate with the Soviets, they had the right to declare war on us.

What you do is quit appeasing them, and get our allies to stop appeasing them. S. Korea and Japan are afraid to let N. Korea fail partly because of what they might do as the regime fails and S. Korea doesn't want to deal with the refugees and the long term economic cost of dealing with N. Korea population in a united Korea.

However, facing the truth 15 years ago would have been easier (before they had nukes), then today, and facing it now will be easier than in 10 years when their missle technolog is better.

Then you have to work on China removing their support. Right now that doesn't seem so difficult. China seems to be unhappy w/ them, but you'd get an idea of where China really stands on the issue.

It is important to remember, these guys (yet, again, presumably we'll see about the son) aren't Hitler (they've shown restraint and haven't convinced themselves that they could successfully take S. Korea, much less the whole world) so there is a hope of getting out of this w/o a war. On the otherhand, they've shown every indication of not having any serious interest in actually reigning in their military advancement.

[Larry]

However, facing the truth 15 years ago would have been easier (before they had nukes), then today, and facing it now will be easier than in 10 years when their missle technolog is better.

Not if you're S Korea, it isn't.

N Korea can already reach them. All that happens, if N Korea gets better, is it allows them to threaten other people. NK's missile technology doesn't affect S Korea in the least.

[PeterMP]

Not if you're S Korea, it isn't.

N Korea can already reach them. All that happens, if N Korea gets better, is it allows them to threaten other people. NK's missile technology doesn't affect S Korea in the least.

But, if we assume the estimates of their nuclear capability w/ limited nukes. There's a difference between 3 nukes and 10 in your own country (or 3 little ones vs. 3 big ones).

We also have pretty big stick to use against S. Korea (i.e. we aren't happy with how things are going in part due to your actions so we are walking away and you can deal w/ them all by yourself if and when the regime fails, including if they decide to cross the 38th parallel before failing).

[Mickalino]

If the thing hits Hawaii, it's not a threat. (Yet.)

What ?

If it hits Hawaii, how is it not a threat ?

And adding the word "yet" is just stating the obvious, and just changes from future tense to present tense, yet doesn't change the troubling meaning of the first sentence.

[PeterMP]

What ?

If it hits Hawaii, how is it not a threat ?

And adding the word "yet" is just stating the obvious, and just changes from future tense to present tense, yet doesn't change the troubling meaning of the first sentence.

I think Larry means that at that point in time you've moved from it being a threat to it being an act of war.

[Mickalino]

I think Larry means that at that point in time you've moved from it being a threat to it being an act of war.

Then why did he add the word "yet" ?

I don't see what it adds to the statement, besides the obvious.

[GibbsFactor]

It's pretty simple. We as a nation are still divided over preemptive strikes. Half of us want to take him out before something happens, the other half wishes to wait until something happens.

I tend to side with those that wish to wait until something happens. But I'd perfer it to be an attack using small arms vs missiles. That's why I'd rather embose embargos and search and seizures on his ships. If he wants to start something, at least perhaps only a ship of ours is taken out, minimizing causualties.

Then we can flex our muscles. Much better then playing war games in the air with him.